With the economic downturn coming, companies are really going to ask themselves who's necessary. Those white collar workers that have plenty of leisure time are going to suddenly be out of work, and will be forced into the blue collar market, only they are going to have to compete with blue collar workers that have been in the market for many more years than they have. Guess who the company's are going to hire...
As for the white collar workers that made the cut, their job isn't going to be as cozy. You're trading in back-breaking work for mental-straining work with severe time constraints.
There won't be many jobs. With the boon of cheap cash trade workers also cashed in, way overcharging for work that was half as much just a decade ago. But now home sales are grinding to a halt. Cash is no longer cheap. People can no longer cash in on their equity with rates rising. Already I've had work quotes half what they were just last year.
There's a reason many children of blue collar workers were told to go to college. Now we might need to readjust that thinking and balance it better. But it came from a place of understanding how hard that life can be.
The lack of a human face and inflections in voice can make anything come across as passive aggressive. Reading the question "why did you build this" can come across as many different ways, including condescending.
What usually happens in my case is I start off writing a simple program in Bash, then it unexpectedly becomes complicated as I add more and more to it.
It's not just that Wikipedia is vulnerable to human error just like anything else, it seems to be driven by activists. Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia's co-founders, has been trying to warn people that his own creation has been bastardized.
I still use Wikipedia for pure STEM subjects, but beyond that, I wouldn't trust it.
Even for pure STEM subjects, the further you go into esoterica, the less checking there can be on it. I remember one instance, mainly because it added an hour or two to a problem set in grad school.
(Apologies for any errors, as it's been the better part of a decade since then.) Wikipedia gave simplified formulas for the asymptomatic forms of the modified Bessel functions, and each formulas they gave were correct. However, each simplification used a different branch cut, so subtracting two of the asymptomatic forms wouldn't give the correct result. Tracing back that error, and why I was consistently off by a factor of 2*pi took a long time.
Here's a pretty good interview Larry did on Tim Pools show about 7 months ago, outlining just how bad it is. It's a topical show and not 100% focused on Larry though. Tim also outlines how hard it is to correct factually inaccurate information on what people write about him in his wiki entry (stating he created a "blimp" etc). Also goes into the fake, circular references and activists gaming the system.
I fail to see how this effect would be less pronounced than, say, newspaper editors determining the overall voice of how they cover things.
Im not declaring that Wikipedia is objective, but I don’t honestly believe it’s worse than other sources of info (beyond like… really digging into a primary source of a subject? And even then)
It's not exactly the credibility that's the problem. There are dedicated editors on Wikipedia that are not only removing updates to articles, but are putting up false information, and are hiding behind Section 230 to avoid any repercussions. At the very least, regular news agencies have to issue corrections, or face lawsuits (granted, regular news agencies frequently put out false information and issue corrections only after everyone has already read the article).
If the social media platforms in question are taking down posts on the recommendations (or demands, take your pick) of the White House's senior staff, then I think it's fair to say that they are State Actor's.
Or when they are being paid by the government, which is indeed the case with covid messaging, just like they do all other MSM. Hence the lawsuits against Facebook for censorship because they are acting as agents of the state.
I've grown pessimistic about distributed networks and the Fediverse. The Pareto distribution is this neverending bastard of a phenomena that creeps up into everything we touch.
If a distributed network ends up displacing Youtube, what's going to inevitably happen is one section of the network is going consume the vast majority of the viewership and content, and they're going to start repeating the same shit that Youtube is doing right now.
I'm not saying we shouldn't promote alternatives, but I am saying we haven't really figured out how to properly integrate social media into our society without it disintegrating into what we're seeing now (or worse).
A publishing house publishes a book that an author writes.
Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections.
The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.
This isn't really about section 230, this is about the first amendment. You cannot, and will not, ever successfully pass an enforced law that requires private companies to maintain content they themselves did not produce on their website against their will.
You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.
The point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.
Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country.
Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case.
I don't want to compel speech. I want to reattach a cost or liability to YouTube that was removed via state power.
Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language."
The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.
That doesn't matter, because The First Amendment still prevents the US government from stopping YouTube from existing as a platform for content it does not produce. It's a simple concept of "who did this?" and if it's not YouTube, then it's not liable.
I notice you ignored completely the articles I linked, and didn't even bother to address the myriad arguments put forward by legal experts on this issue. I assume that's because you have no legal standing whatsoever, and would prefer to just say, "This is what I want and I don't care if the country has to cease to exist first."
Additionally, I find it highly hypocritical that you post such an opinion on a platform that would be shut down, were you to magically get your way. When you have to express your opinion in a way that wouldn't be allowed if your opinion were shared, you might want to rethink your position. It makes your position look wholly unconsidered, which it apparently is.
I can address your articles, but they're at odds with one another. More specifically, the Harvard one claims CDA 230 is superfluous, while the Notre Dame one argues it is essential (to the internet as currently structured). I would say the Notre Dame one is correct.
The big flaw is revealed in the Lawfare blog:
"[CDA 230] merely ensures that courts will quickly dismiss lawsuits that would have been dismissed anyway on First Amendment grounds—but with far less hassle, stress and expense. At the scale of the billions of pieces of content posted by users every day, that liability shield is essential to ensure that website owners aren’t forced to abandon their right to moderate content by a tsunami of meritless but costly litigation."
The principle here isn't whether all the cases have merit or not; it is that every individual gets their day in court. That is, it is up to the courts to decide the merit of a case based on fact, which, of course, is case-dependent [1].
Denying individuals access to the courts makes them bear a cost. That cost should, in truth, be borne by Big Tech and subtracted from its profits.
As for Hacker News, it might not survive in its present form should CDA 230 be repealed. That's OK, though. Perhaps it would become PG's blog, and I would have to start my own blog to comment on matters of the day. That's entirely acceptable, and I don't find it hypocritical.
The citations all agree that the 1st Amendment covers the part of Section 230 that you want to repeal. They disagree on the extent and impact, but they all fundamentally agree that Section 230 plays a role as a shortcut through litigation. You haven't addressed any of that, because it completely defeats your argument.
There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230. YouTube, as a concept, will never go away, no matter what you want, because the 1st Amendment exists. Every individual would not get their day in court, as a precedent would be set and future lawsuits would be thrown out quickly, just as they are today.
Honestly, this smacks of bitter childishness; you want to hurt Google and you think this is the best way to do it. It is not, because it would not. It hurts no one, and would be re-resolved within the very next Supreme Court session, so no more than ~6 months. This childishness is reinforced by your acceptance that the platform you're writing on would not exist. You may not see that as hypocritical, but I and nearly everyone else who reads this does. It, alone, weakens your argument substantially.
Newspapers do not enjoy CDA 230 protection. They face actual liabilities and carry liability insurance, a cost. Without CDA 230, these liabilities will not disappear for Big Tech by one case going to the Supreme Court in 6 months. We've seen the opposite with the Supreme Court not hearing at least one letter-to-the-editor libel case for newspapers [1].
Finally, It is not guaranteed that Hacker News would cease to exist. It might need liability insurance or change in some other way. All I know is that things would be different and better.
I did read my citation. Ice cream trucks also don't have CDA 230 protection. What's your point? YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses, pretending otherwise is a waste of time, and further indulging your "This windmill is a dragon!" delusion.
This is a temper tantrum, and will never pass legislative or judicial muster. Enjoy YouTube, because its kind of site is sticking around forever.
This reminds me of a temper tantrum someone else threw on Twitter, claiming to leave the platform for an "a censorship-resistant technology: RSS". Did HN suddenly become exclusively based on RSS? No? Interesting. It's almost as if this is a post-hoc argument concocted to try and justify a childish fit.
Edit: You also shared propaganda on your Twitter feed about Hunter Biden's laptop, so it's pretty clear where your allegiances lie. Yet again, another conservative cries foul when an institution doesn't support his ideas.
I'm done here, I only engage with adults, which you clearly are not.
YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses BECAUSE of CDA 230.
You're right that YouTube will exist as long as CDA 230 exists. However, if CDA 230 is ever repealed, YouTube will have to change as its business model is not protected by the 1st Amendment but by an act of Congress.
Not an ad hominem. Your argument is bad because you don't support it with anything other than blind assertions. You also are clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which makes your selection of facts, should you choose to bring any facts to this discussion, suspect.
"But Section 230 substantively protects more speech than the First Amendment, and the First Amendment will not adequately backfill any reductions in Section 230’s protections."
— Your source, not mine (not that matters).
Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.
Thank you for demonstrating that you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith, considering I never said "CDA 230 doesn't matter", nor did any of the articles I cited say that.
At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so then anyone reading this will have to guess at why, other than rationality, would you want YouTube, Twitter, and HN to cease to exist.
Your Twitter account, in your profile, should give anyone reading this all the information they need to understand your bias.
You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230."
One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from certain responsibilities:
"Because we [YouTube] are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]
And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising.
Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.
Ha! Are you trying to defame me by calling me a liar?
I've quoted you twice and paraphrased your argument once by saying that it "seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter." Perhaps that was an oversimplification; however, let's be clear, CDA 230 is a stronger litigation shield than the First Amendment. For that reason, it needs to go.
So effectively you just want people with money to have the ability to disseminate their speech, since they're the only ones who would be able to share their content via any of these platforms if Section 230 were repealed.
There is a valley of nuance between Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [1] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [2]. All of this nuance was being worked out in the courts via common law principles before Congress short-circuited the process with CDA 230, which turned out to be one of the things that helped facilitate the rise of the Big Tech oligopoly that Congress now decries.
There's no such thing as nuance when it comes to corporate liability via third party participation. Companies are going to do the thing which reduces the surface area for litigation as much as possible. Youtube would nuke political speech entirely so fast from anyone not paying them a fee to be broadcast that heads would spin.
"X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.)
The nuance is as follows:
A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation.
The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order.
B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation.
The website is making an effort to determine the truthfulness of content. As such, letting a defamatory post go through subjects the website to liability.
C) Under CDA 230.
As per YouTube, "Because we are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]
Option C is the worst. It is akin to letting an oil company pick and choose which spills are worth cleaning up. Websites can remove things they think are defamatory to certain people and leave up other things that are defamatory to others with no repercussions.
Ideally, we would live in a world governed by A and B. In that world, sites could choose between moderation and no moderation and the corresponding legal and financial burdens. What we have right now is a mess that works to the advantage of Big Tech.
There's a zero percent chance that a company like Youtube would allow its content to go completely unmoderated. It has to moderate its content. It has advertisers who are associated with content and it has to keep on the right side of copyright law. Also, no website operator wants the hassle of dealing with court orders because posters are engaging in verbal slapfights online. Your proposal of A would have an EXTREME chilling effect on speech.
Because Youtube exists in the real world, and because earning money through ads is a hell of a lot better for business than trying to get people to pay for content, C is always the best option for them and for every other content provider AND virtually all small and independent content producers.
Otherwise, companies like Youtube would be forced to gate entrance to supplying content by charging hosting fees for content. You are seeing the tree and missing the rest of the forest.
1.) A and B are not my proposals; They're case law that has been preempted by C.
2.) Copyright falls under the DMCA, which pretty much follows A's procedures (i.e., a takedown notice model) even though the DMCA is a statutory provision. Why are copyright holders so special?
3.) There is no constitutional right to an ad-based business model. Ad-based models evolved under rules similar to B's, but for newspapers, and B is what should govern said models online (unless someone can demonstrate a successful ad-based model under A).
4.) CDA 230 is the golden goose; hence, it won't be repealed. Everyone gets paid to the detriment of society and the individuals who are denied their day in court.
The idea isn’t repealing 230 - it’s to recognise any platform that’s manually curating content as a publisher. Then if that publisher hosts illegal content, they’re liable, because if they can curate some of the content, they should be responsible for all of it.
Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”
Curation is not, has not, and will never be, the bar for determining what is and isn't a platform or a publisher. Curation is an expression of free speech, which is different from the role a publisher plays in works it publishes.
Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.
The libertarian stance would be to repeal CDA 230. I don't know any libertarians that prefer statutory law to common law.
"Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."
YouTube makes opinionated decisions about what gets in their search results. They edit their search results and have a team that decides that goes on the front page. That's editing. YouTube is a publisher.
Can someone explain why Spring, or J2EE in general, is a necessity for its target audience, and for that matter, what its target audience is? I've only worked on Spring applications when I had to, so forgive my ignorance, but every time I've worked on a Spring application, I never found a good reason why Spring was necessary.
I always thought that Spring was meant for maintaining large codebases with many interconnected parts that you might want to swap out at a given notice. We can talk about whether or not Spring is a good fit for that scenario, but I at least understand why you would use it. But the applications I've worked on that used Spring were offline, single-purpose, non-changing, and (relatively) small. I would then ask why we're using Spring for this, and I basically get the same responses as the parent post with a facial expression that's pondering if I'm high.
So if you go back to the early days of J2EE, you'll notice that it was very EJB-centric - for the most part, J2EE containers were EJB containers with some extra stuff to support EJB. EJB, for the most part, was pre-ORM ORM back when object-relational mapping was a relatively new concept. There was more to it than that, of course, but using Entity EJBs for object-relational mapping was the core of what J2EE was all about.
The problem was, it was a massive unusable beast of a mess. Rod Johnson came along, found some ways to simplify the concept into a "lightweight" container and called it "Spring" as an alternative to the heavyweight EJB containers of the late 90's.
The thing that everybody seems to be missing is that the only reason you needed the container in the first place was to support the Entity EJB's that were more trouble than they were worth. Standalone ORM tools like Hibernate solve the actual entity-relational mapping problem far less intrusively than J2EE or Spring ever did (Hibernate is still more trouble than it's worth but at least you can understand why it's there).
Spring doesn't actually do anything except make other things available in Spring, and it actually damages your codebase by forcing you to make most of your variables effectively global (which Spring calls singleton beans).
You don't need Spring to maintain large codebases with many interconnected parts that you might want to swap out at a given notice. You can just create ('wire up') your objects in your `main` method.
As for the white collar workers that made the cut, their job isn't going to be as cozy. You're trading in back-breaking work for mental-straining work with severe time constraints.